-By Warner Todd Huston
As President Obama engaged in his “America Stinks” tour of Europe this week he told audiences in Turkey that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” he said on April 6. This echoes his statement in 2007 when Obama told CBN, “whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation.”
The subtle difference between those two statements just over a year apart is interesting. Candidate Obama seemed to admit that we might have “once” been a Christian nation but are no longer “just” a Christian nation. But, suddenly as president, he seems to be saying squarely that we “don’t” consider ourselves Christian. Interesting that he seemed to feel obligated to mitigate as a candidate his now openly admitted belief that we just aren’t a Christian nation.
In any case, it is obvious that this is Obama’s way of ingratiating himself with Muslim audiences. But whatever his immediate goal, his sentiment is a popular one with Americans that sport left-wing, anti-religious ideology, people who look to Obama as their leader.
But is he right? Is it true that we aren’t a Christian nation? Did the Founding Fathers choose the Christian ethic as the one upon which they based this country, or not? The answer would appear to be an emphatic yes once the historical record is reviewed. It would also appear that we are straying far afield from that grounding.
What are we if NOT a Christian Nation?”
Brendan Steinhuser of 
I propose that “Dueling Banjos” replace our current national anthem. Remember the 1972 movie 
MSNBC took the occasion of a triple homicide on Chicago’s south side to push its own anti-“assault rifle” meme on February 27 by including the words “assault rifle” in the headline of its story on the incident. No other media source, however, took this unusual step. So, here we have some old fashioned bias by MSNBC.
Usually I don’t go for the hard-edged treatment of politicians as my headline here does. I don’t often call individuals “liars” and the like, though I’ve been known to do so on occasion. Generally, I prefer to assume that those that oppose my views are truthfully advocating for deep held beliefs and not using lies and obfuscation to get there — some exceptions to that, of course. I am not really the biggest fan of the wild-eyed, Olbermannesque sort of bombast and name-calling. 
America has always had a great tradition, one mature for it’s age and true at birth, of the peaceful turnover of power from one faction to another. Never have Americans rioted when a president of another party took his seat in the White House, never has the military been called in and never has government been wholly shut down during the turnover of power because of political strife and unrest. This is, it cannot be denied, a good thing. It is one of the things that makes the USA’s unique among the history of nations. But, does this relative good sense include the necessity of one party giving the new president of the opposing party “a chance” once he takes office? As Republicans, are we obliged to sit back and allow a new president we opposed — in this case Barack Obama — the opportunity to do anything and everything he so pleases? Is this what is meant by “giving him a chance”?
You may heave heard of the saying “nature abhors a vacuum”? In essence, it means that once something disappears nature quickly fills the hole left behind. Well, in history there is another axiom about “vacuums.” It is that nothing occurs in one. In this short piece, we’ll take a moment to find out why the Boston Massacre was one of the final straws that severed the bonds of affection between the American Colonists and the British Crown and we’ll see that it didn’t occur in a proverbial vacuum. Far from being a sudden action or one that happened without precedent, the Boston Massacre was the culmination, at least philosophically so, of actions of a similar nature that had been happening in both England and the Colonies for months beforehand. 
You know, I was wondering when this was going to happen, when someone in the MSM would say Bush has ruined July Fourth? The Philadelphia Inquirer didn’t disappoint by wallowing in the worst example of blame-America-above-all as well as the most extreme case of BDS that I’ve seen outside the kind of nutroot sites like Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground. A mainstream paper has now gone that extra mile to let us all know that America does not deserve a July Fourth celebration this year because of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA secret prisons, and, lest you imagine otherwise, the fact that we have made George W. Bush our president. “Cancel the parade” because America is evil. It’s all there in all it’s anti-American splendor in 
Columnist Tom Eblen of the Lexington, Kentucky Herald-Leader has proven to the world that he doesn’t know what a “right” is. He thinks it is something that you can “compromise” over. He thinks it is something that can be endlessly tinkered with. He seems not to realize that a “right” is something that is supposed to be insoluble, unchangeable, permanent. Worse, he has equated an American right to the horse raising industry as if the business decisions made by a handful of ranchers is somehow comparable to the observance and maintenance of our rights. Ridiculously he says that if we don’t compromise this one right, our 2nd Amendment right, it will be taken away. And hypocritically, after using fear to urge us to compromise, he accuses those of us interested in safeguarding the 2nd Amendment of using “fear” tactics.
A gold medal that was created for George Washington, who was apparently our first president and richest, most vicious slave owner in America, and presented to the Marquis de Lafayette, a French man fooled into helping the nascent American rebellion, was auctioned at Sotheby’s in Manhattan on Tuesday for a record $5.3 million, and will remain in France after residing there for 183 years where it can be viewed by Americans seeking a better life in Europe.